Below you will find labour relations board or court decisions that we are aware of that deal with the use of our content or our website by employees, employers or unions. In some cases we provide a summary of the decision and you can also download the copy of the decision we keep online.

Summary

Labour Board Decision

Citation: United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Local 7144 Applicant and Rambler Metals and Mining Canada Limited First Respondent and Lloyd Mitchell Second Respondent

Labour Board Decision

Frank O’Leary, Applicant v. Carpenters’ District Council of Ontario United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675, Responding Party v. C.A.S. Interiors Inc., Intervenor

Summary

Labour Board Decision

Construction General Labourers Rock and Tunnel Workers, Local 1208 Applicant and W.R.H. Construction Inc., carrying on business under the name and style of Hydro-Guard Roofing Systems (Hydro-Guard) Respondent

Thomas Grinter on behalf of Certain Employees of Maritime Demolition Limited Applicants and Labourers International Union of North America, Local 615 and Respondent Maritime Demolition Limited, Employer

Summary

John Moretti, the sole employee on the day of the Application, was the younger brother of the owner of Moretti Construction Company. On two occasions in 2010, before he applied and again before his hearing, he called our 800 number. His call was returned by an expert LabourWatch volunteer the same day. His April 2010 Application to decertify LIUNA Local 183 was challenged by the union on a number of grounds including his use of LabourWatch. He testified about his use of the site and his calls to us. He faced a battery of union lawyers in July of 2010.

Summary

In late 2008 employees of Premium Brands in Calgary, Alberta applied to decertify the UFCW. The union filed Unfair Labour Practices charges.

The employer’s memo contained information about LabourWatch. The union did not expressly complain about the LabourWatch content. The decision allowed the vote to be counted but said nothing about LabourWatch. It merely reproduced the employer’s memo including the LabourWatch section. The vote was in favour of decertification.

Background

Premium operated a fresh meat and warehouse distribution facility in Calgary, Alberta with approximately 48 employees - 25 in the United Food and Commercial Workers bargaining unit. Premium also operated a similar facility in Edmonton that was union-free.

The Calgary employees filed for decertification in November of 2008.. The Board held the vote on December 9, 2008 and sealed the ballot box pending the determination of the union’s complaint.

The union’s complaint related to the posting of four documents in the workplace on the days prior to the vote. One of the postings was a memo from the employer. This memo referred to other documents such as the benefits under the Collective Agreement, benefits for non-union employees at the Edmonton facility and the Edmonton Employee Handbook, all of which were posted along with the employer’s memo. At the bottom of the memo from the employer was contact information for the Labour Board and for LabourWatch.

Though a number of the union’s concerns were found to be valid, no reference was made to the employer’s referral to LabourWatch and the Board ultimately, in January 2009, ordered the ballot box opened and the votes counted.

Conclusion

Of interest, while the Board had concern with some aspects of the employer’s communications, it did rule that the employer’s comparison of the collective agreement to the non-unionized employees was accurate and was not unlawful.

LabourWatch was not directly named in the decision save that the Board chose to include the entire employer memo.

Summary

This BCLRB decision deals with a UFCW certification drive at a Wal-Mart store in Dawson Creek, BC. The UFCW filed unfair labour practice complaints against Wal-Mart, some Wal-Mart employees and a lawyer, Michael Nolin from Saskatchewan.

After Nolin’s father, a Wal-Mart employee, expressed concerns about union organizing tactics, Nolin began acting for some Wal-Mart employees before the Saskatchewan Board. Last year he was contacted by a Dawson Creek employee to whom he subsequently wrote a letter.

In its May 30th decision, the BCLRB reviewed the letter written by Michael Nolin that incorrectly explains BC labour law and makes a number of statements about the UFCW and about Wal-Mart. Nolin’s letter contained references to both www.labourwatch.com as well as Members for Democracy (MfD) - a union reform website run by current and former UFCW members.

In its decision, while the Board quoted extensively from Nolin's letter, when it came to the websites the Board simply wrote that the letter "urged employees to visit the two websites," without actually naming either LabourWatch or MfD. The Board also omitted any reference to the four LabourWatch FAQs attached to Nolin's letter claiming that Nolin's letter "repeated information found on two websites". Having now reviewed the letter, this statement in the decision is not at all accurate. The letter refers to the many pages of attachments downloaded from the websites. The Board only acknowledged that Nolin's letter was sent "with some other documents."

In addition to filing a complaint against Nolin, the Union also filed a complaint against some Wal-Mart employees who the UFCW alleged distributed the Nolin letter and attachments at a meeting in the home of a Wal-Mart employee. The meeting was attended by Union supporters and opponents who held a discussion on unionization.

Describing the meeting as “relaxed,” the Board dismissed the Union’s complaint in finding that no employee acted in a coercive or intimidating fashion by distributing Nolin’s letter at this meeting. They also noted that the employees never distributed the letter at the Wal-Mart store.

The Board cleared Wal-Mart of any wrong-doing as well in rejecting the complaints filed by the UFCW.

However, the Board found that Nolin contravened the Labour Code as a result of statements made in the letter to the Wal-Mart employees. For example, Nolin made allegations about UFCW organizing tactics that he had not looked into. He also asserted to the employees that if they unionized their store might close.

The Board found some of Nolin’s statements to be coercive and intimidating. Nolin and his law firm were ordered to pay to have the decision mailed to the homes of all current Wal-Mart employees in the Dawson Creek store and for a subsequent UFCW mailing.

LabourWatch emerged from the Board’s decision unscathed but also unannounced. This is the third case in a row that a Labour Board has heard evidence and occasionally complaints against LabourWatch – and in dismissing the union complaints – the Board failed to acknowledge our name.

Full Decision

Summary

An employee of Varsity Common Garden Market, a grocery store operated by a Sobey's franchisee, made an application for decertification in 2004. The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) complained that the applicant employee in Saskatoon had used LabourWatch to understand decertification and to find a lawyer listed on the website to help her. It was the first time we are aware that a Board heard such complaints and evidence about the use of the LabourWatch website under oath during a decertification hearing. The Board found no employer interference and ordered that a vote take place on April 25, 2005.

The union continued the fight against the employee's democratic vote and statutory right of decertification. First they sought reconsideration of the April 6, 2005 decision. The vote was sealed pending the outcome of a Union reconsideration application and a Union Objection to Vote application.

In September of 2005, the Board dismissed the Union's reconsideration application (LRB File 181-04 & 227-04).

In October of 2005, the Board dismissed the Union's objections to the April 25 vote and ordered the vote counted (LRB File 227-04).

When the vote was finally counted, the employees had voted to be union-free again.

Full Decision

Summary

The Newfoundland & Labrador Labour Relations Board rejected a Union complaint that an employer's reference to LabourWatch.com represented an Unfair Labour Practice. The Board dismissed the complaints in a one page order without reasons. The Union filed two complaint pleadings.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees (NAPE) complained to the Board that a Newsletter circulated by Labrador Motors to its employees during a certification drive represented "intimidation and/or threats and/or coercion by the Employer." The Union sought a "cease and desist" order and a remedial certification "without counting the vote".

The Union did not object to the Newsletter directing employees to the Labour Board and the Union for more information. NAPE took exception to the Newsletter referring employees to LabourWatch.com.

The Newsletter simply said the following, "...a website devoted to answering employee questions on this issue can be found at www.labourwatch.com."

NAPE's complaint was that, "...the Employer's reference to the LabourWatch website in its newsletter ...in itself constitutes an unfair labour practice ...(and) that in the case of Wal-Mart" (BCLRB 156/2003), "the BCLRB considered the issue of the distribution of documents downloaded from the LabourWatch website, www.labourwatch.com ...(including) two pages created by the distributor of the materials as well as a union membership revocation form. In considering the nature of the material the BCLRB referred to it as 'anti-union material'."

In its pleading, NAPE also cited a New Brunswick case, Bonté Foods ( IR-036-03: 07/22/03 ), where the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board noted that, " ...the neutrality of the labourwatch.com website has yet to be determined".

NAPE did not succeed in its attempt to use the New Brunswick and British Columbia cases to convince the Newfoundland and Labrador Board that Labrador Motors committed an Unfair Labour Practice. The Board found that the Employer "has not violated the Act as alleged" and rejected the complaint in a simple one-page order that made no reference to LabourWatch.

A copy of NAPE's pleadings, the employer's reply and the Board's dismissal are on the website in the Decisions section of About Us. We have not included a second Board Decision that is 20 pages long, that deals with issues around a terminated employee. There are no references to LabourWatch in it and this second Union complaint was also dismissed.

Full Decision

Summary

This New Brunswick decision deals with a Union's Unfair Labour Practices complaint against an employer, Bonté Foods, who referred employees to our website in a letter that attached a copy of our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) download during a union drive. As a result of reading this, some employees went to our website obtained our Petition and Cancellation Download. The union had over 60% support and the opportunity for an automatic certification (no secret ballot vote). The employee Statements of Desire might have led to a vote but the Board in this case found that the FAQ's contained a "hyperlink" from which the employees "obtained" the Petition. Given that paper cannot hyperlink to the internet to another document we find this aspect of the Decision troubling. The Board goes on to state: "the circulation of a document to employees that specifically provides direct reference to a petition ... is a violation of section 3(5) of the Act, in that amounts to undue influence." Some question whether it is possible to violate section 3(5) and at the moment we are evaluating the potential issues with the Board's Decision. In the meantime the two New Brunswick Decisions at this time delineate the Board's view of two different methods of communicating with employees in order to help them at least find more information than they can get from a union or from the Board.

Full Decision

Summary

This first New Brunswick decision deals with a United Steelworkers complaint against an employer, Apex Services, who referred employees in 3 letters to our website during a union drive. The employer also referred employees to the Labour and Employment Board for more information. The Decision deals with an employee petition opposing unionization and subsequent employee Membership Cancellation Forms. Both documents came from our website according to the Decision. The union failed to convince the Board in this case that the employee Statements of Desire were not voluntary and that management was inappropriately involved. The Union's card support of over 60% and an automatic certification was pushed below 50% by the employee's documents so a vote was held. The Union and its employee supporters lost the vote and the majority of voting employees desire to remain union-free was the final outcome.

Full Decision

Summary

This BCLRB decision discusses the use of LabourWatch during an organizing drive as a result of an employee downloading our materials, appending her own materials and distributing them in the work place, on work time and not being stopped by management. It was written by the same Vice Chair that wrote the first ever decision about LabourWatch. Our May 2003 Newsletter content is included with the download of the decision and we have also included the 53 paragraphs related to LabourWatch out of the total 221 paragraphs.

Full Decision

Summary

This BC LRB decision discusses the use of LabourWatch during an organizing drive as a result of the employer referring employees to the site in a memo. It is the first decision that we are aware of and came 22 months after our website became available. This decision held that "nothing turns on the content of the site alone in this case." Further, ". . . the information on the website is neutral" by explaining the Code, the Regulations, etc. but "it is not pristine in its neutrality from the perspective that it is apparently limited to offering a countervailing view to what information an organizing union may be prepared to give employees." We note that our web site directs employees who want a union to the many excellent union web sites that we link to as it is not our goal to duplicate what is readily available to employees.

However, select "Federal and Territories", if any of the following apply:

You live in Northwest Territories, Nunavut or Yukon.

You work as a federal civil servant anywhere in Canada.

You work in one of the following industries:

airports or air transportation

broadcasting - radio, television or cable television

telecommunications

banking

fisheries (but only if your business relates to the protection and preservation of fisheries as a natural resource)

shipping and navigation (including loading and unloading vessels)

grain handling

uranium mining and processing

certain federal crown agencies

You work in one of the following industries AND (a) your activities connect one province to another OR (b) extend beyond the limit of one province:

air transport

canals

ferries, tunnels and bridges

highway transport of good or passengers

railway transport of goods or passengers

Employees in the Federal and Territories jurisdiction are covered by Federal laws passed by the Canadian Parliament. Private sector employees are covered by the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB). Most full-time public sector employees – federal civil servants - are covered by the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB).